The dynastic legacy of the Bonapartes lies largely with the descendants of the Empress Josephine and her first husband, Alexandre, vicomte de Beauharnais.
Their son Eugene de Beauharnais, 1st Duke of Leuchtenberg (adopted son of Napoleon I) married Princess Augusta of Bavaria, and from this marriage descend the sovereigns of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Luxembourg, King Constantine of Greece, and HRH the Margrave of Baden.

Thanks for the link. He has one interesting new site he has to promote his 2007 campaign. But I could not get the family tree to load, gave me a missing file icon.

On the child he wrote: Ma dernière fille, ANH née le 22 avril 1998 à Saïgon, Viet-Nam, est en primaire à Paris. She was born in April 22, 1998 in Saigon Vietnam. I did not know about this either. I found interesting he does not mention his first wife, the Two Sicilies Princess that, thanks to their two kids, ties forever his Bonaparte heir to the rival House of Bourbon. Somehwhere in a grave both Napoleon I and Napoleon III and the Last Bourbon (Orleans) King are rolling over on their graves.

Yes, I forgot this. The claim would then go to the branch of the duques di Sevilla.
And I don't understand why the hypothetical wedding of Luis Alfonso and Caroline Napol&#233;on would have drivent the Orl&#233;ans of the edge.

Increases your hypotetical odds to a non-existent throne disputed by two families: The Bourbons dream of a Royal France, the Bonaparte's of an Imperial France. Luis Alfonso carries the Borbon legacy and Caroline the Bonaparte that, had we been in the middle ages it would look a very similar story on how the Bourbons came to power on the first place. They married a Valois princess and kicked the Valois (that also were their Capet cousins) out of the throne. So, had this been the middle ages or as recent as the 19th century this marriage of two dinasties would have given France the best of two thrones, the heroic Bonaparte legacy and the sense of continuity of the original house of Capet. That would have blown any rivals off the radar.

And would make the house of Bonaparte another branch of the Capets like the Valois, the Bourbons, the Vendomes, the Contis, the Orleans, the Orleans-Braganza, Bourbon-Parma, Bourbon-Two Sicilies, etc.

The Bonaparte heir and his ex wive, the Bourbon Two Sicilies princess did this already and their two kids carry both Houses in their veins. But we go back to reality, there is no such thing as a Royal or Imperial France anymore. But this matters seem interesting to speculate about because the members of this drama make their public quarrels quite entertaining for us to read about.
My opinion? The Bonaparte claimant has a better chance, he is running for political office in 2007 and making a name for himself. All I think of is that Napoleon III started the same way, running for office, and we know what happened next.

I would just object two points: first, we're not in middle ages and it would be a little more difficult to kick the Orléans out of their claims; secondly, Charles Napoléon is running with the socialist party, if I'm not mistaking, and as for I know, he's nearly as republican as me. I highly doubt the french socialist (which I know very well) would accept him if there were the most little chance he would make a tentative to take the throne of France. And he's running for a local office, not for the presidency of the french Republic (which is by the way an epic matter in all the parties).
I think there's very little chance for France to become again a monarchy for the next hundred years.

That's why I said hypotetical.
Charles Napoleon could be running for any party and that does not change his identity as the Bonaparte candidate.
Running for a local office is as good as a start up career in politics as any other political job.
France might never be a monarchy again, but twenty years ago I never thought I would live to see the fall of the Eastern Communist block and, that Yeltsin will welcome with open arms the Romanovs back to Russia.
Nor that France would have so many riots in the recent years. Always a catalytic enzyme to bigger changes. You are in France, please keep us posted since you have the advantage to see it first hand.

I agree he will always remain a Bonaparte. But what I heard, from a very good friend who moved in the bonapartist circles, is that he's not very interested in his dynastic rights, much less that the count of Paris is, for example. Of course I can be wrong, and I must admit that if monarchy must be back in France, I'd rule for the bonapartists.
On your russian example, I agree, things are evolving so fast. But I have many doubts about monarchy in France, for the moment (official monarchy, at least, as our presidents are used acting like monarchs, sometimes ).

The descendants of Hortense (spelling?) and Louis are Bonaparte. But I'd like to know if there are Bonapartes who are the descendants of Napoleon's other sisters or brothers than Jerom.

:) Here is the PDF Bonaparte family tree with most of the branches, tree shrubs etc that sprung out until 2004. I suggest you to print it out because it's quite a nice collectible for any Royal Trivia research:http://www.homar.org/genealog/pagina.asp?pag=frc20

I think is all a matter of seizing the opportunity when it comes by. If Charles Napoleon is not openly pitching his own imperial agenda and goes to election under the socialist party support, that is a way to get in without scaring republicans. You know, the tale of the wolf in sheep clothing. Although in this case is reverse, he is a royal sheep in wolf's clothing entering the territory of the big bad wolves of politics . That's a better approach than, let's say, the pompous and seemingly arrogant House of Bourbon and House of Orleans who wait for the opportunity to be served to them on a silver plater. Much like Duarte, the Braganaza claimant does in Portugal on his refusal to enter the political arena.

Prince Charles Napoleon married a royal Princess after all. And a Bourbon no less. If he plays his cards well one local election would put him on the spotlight, then catapult to bigger things. Throw in some discontent among the people toward their system, some riots here and there and before you know time turns back and the improbable happens: people start thinking just one thought, the after all, why not? thought. The world of politics in any place is just like the flavor of the month club, politicians go up and down in the public's eye in the most surprising ways. Besides, what is a President of a country but a King without a crown? Just look at the USA, father president, son president and now the talk that the other brother wants to run for the 2008 presidency. Presidents and Royals are not much different toward each other, except that Royals are a little more stable and for the people than republican overlords, who are for the party they belong too. The people's acceptance in any election is just a tool to the power they crave. Royals have a court, politicians have lobbyist groups and other groups of interest

Good luck to Charles Napoleon in 2007! I too think the Bonapartes are better prepared to guide a nation whether as politicians or royals than the rival Bourbon clans or even other career politicians. And Charles Napoleon has one winning card on his deck, his son. He is a Bonaparte with the blood of the Capets running within him too. Past and present in one kid, it's a pink and yellow press dream of a family to exploit in 2007.

I think is all a matter of seizing the opportunity when it comes by. If Charles Napoleon is not pitching openly his own imperial agenda and goes to election under the socialist party support, that is a way to get in without scaring republicans. You know, the tale of the wolf in sheep clothing .

I don't know if he will go with socialist support. At Ajaccio he went with the group leaded by the socialists (he's known to be left-wing). I could say the french socialist are too much intelligent not to read in his feelings, but I wouldn't assiociate the words "intelligent" and "French socialist" currently. That's all the problem (to me, at least).

And I repeat, does he really want to make an attempt to take the french throne? It seems to me unprobable for the moment. Napoléon is too much hated in France (we didn't even celebrate the 200 years of the glorious Austerlitz victory) and their would be an enormous revolt if a Bonapart descendant claimed too openly at the throne.

Quote:

And quite a better approach than, let's say, the pompous and seemingly arrogant House of Bourbon and House of Orleans who wait for the opportunity to be served to them on a silver plater. Much like Duarte, the Braganaza claimant does in Portugal on his refusal to enter the political arena.

I agree, except that Monseigneur le comte de Paris wants to be a candidate in 2007, for the presidency run. Sigh......

Quote:

Prince Charles Napoleon married a royal Princess after all. And a Bourbon no less. If he plays his cards well one local election would put him on the spotlight, then catapult to bigger things. Throw in some discontent among the people toward their system, some riots here and there and before you know time turns back and the improbable happens: people start thinking just one thought, the after all, why not? thought.

There's not as much riots in France as one says. The main problem is not riots, it's what they mean, and no main politician was able to understand the problems who caused the November riots. Frankly, I don't think this analyse applied for the moment to France. I can be wrong, but the "danger" (it would be seen as a danger by the french people) is not monarchy but extrem-right wing (well, let's say lot of french monarchist have much than right-wing ideas, and for some extrem-right wing).

Quote:

The world of politics in any place is just like the flavor of the month club, politicians go up and down in the public's eye in the most surprising ways. Besides, what is a President of a country but a King without a crown? Just look at the USA, father president, son president and now the talk that the other brother wants to run for the 2008 presidency.

Yeah, agree. The last French monarchs have for name François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac. It does not mean they're all bad, but that's the system of the 5th Republic and its constitution.

Quote:

Presidents and Royals are not much different toward each other, except that Royals are a little more stable and for the people than republican overlords, who are for the party they belong too. The people's acceptance in any election is just a tool to the power they crave. Royals have a court, politicians have lobbyist groups and other groups of interest

Ah, I don't agree at all. The french presidents have currently mor power than any European monarch will never have. Being an "a-little-inside-watcher", I can say there are politician who are caring the nation and not so much power, but acceeding to power can change radiccaly someone.
That's the point on which we'll never agree: I'm innerly and fully republican and have the greatest difficulties to justify a hypothetical coming-back of a monarchy in France (although I'm a passionate royal watcher).

Quote:

Good luck to Charles Napoleon in 2007! I too think the Bonapartes are better prepared to guide a nation wether as politicians or royals than the rival Bourbon clans or even other career politicians.

I agree for the Bourbons/Orléans. But not for the politicians. The family does not make everything.

I edited that post quite a few times, I hope you got the last version of it!
The count of Paris wants to run for President in 2007, that's news to me. Was this before or after Charles Napoleon started getting some publicity for the 2007 election?

Interesting.

You have access to the local information over there, I hope you keep us informed because 2007 seems to be the return of the royals year in France.

The count of Paris wants to run for President in 2007, that's new to me. Was this before or after Charles Napoleon started getting some publicity for the 2007 election?

In fact, Charles Napoleon already got some publicity when he was a local "politician" in Ajaccio.
The count of Paris... I don't remember. He already published an article in a right-wing paper against the european constitution.

Quote:

Interesting.
You have access to the local information over there, I hope you keep us informed because 2007 seems to be the return of the royals year in France.

Return of the royals is a very big word. I would use other words to descriebe 2007 and the french elections. Frankly, Toledo, you're very optimist, too much, about royals and return in France.

To be honnet, the majority of the french people don't care at all about Bourbons/Orléans/Bonapart. There are too negative images of monarchy and Empire for the French.

Ah ha! But doesn't the whole notion of "Gloire de France" rest on the brilliance of the Court of Louis XIV, and then the (short-lived) Imperial ambitions and achievements of Napoleon I? Take away those two legacies and the "gloire" becomes rather threadbare.

No. All that remains from Louis XIV is slavery in colonies, wars against the whole Europa, absolute monarch anti-democratic, etc, etc... All that remains from Napoleon is "he was an Hitler before Hitler", slavery in Antillas, wars, absolutism. Nothing positive can be praised in the French past, unlike you want to be treated of "defensor of slavery, antidemocratic, tyran, etc, etc...". Nothing.